What should be reported on a regular basis? What should those reports look like?

Update on CMET R3 (ANSI affirmation) - Woody reports: we determined in late November that we can probably accomplish the CMET approval without reaffirmation (as yet not fully confirmed) and hence we "suspended" this.

No ITS cochair available- Gunther speaks for the ITS Work Group. Proposing mapping new RIM stuff to schema that is backwards compatible. Woody adds that FTSD reviewed last week. Represented there as a transition element not as a fixed element. MnM feels this should not be a long term solution for two datatypes representations, but that there should be a sunset placed on this development. Approval by SD included forwarding the MnM response to the project due to limited quorum on the FTSD call. Interest in amending the project to acknowledge MnM concerns discussed. ITS would like to put out this standard as a “way”, but cannot mandate its adoption, by whom or for how long. Adopters are not primarily US but are multinational companies with interest. The interest in adoption by CDA R2 was discussed; it has not been addressed by Structured Documents specifically that Austin knows of, as a Structured Documents co-chair. Gunther had discussed with Bob Dolin and Rick Geimer. Changes to the generator and updates to Tooling will be needed but Woody notes they’d offer transforms necessary to update the tooling. Calvin requests a short statement for why are we in this pickle, why the migration to the next datatypes does not work. Woody notes that DT R2 to align HL7 with CEN and ISO. There were elements introduced not backwards compatible on wire format, e.g. collections of attributes are represented as a collection with items rather than repeating items such as phone numbers. Negatives submitted in ballot were found not persuasive and the standard has moved forward to ISO. Gunther maintains that not all negatives were found not persuasive. R1.1 represented many of those objections; Woody counters that this project would not be needed if R1.1 were sufficient. Gunther maintains they will not lose conformance with the ISO datatypes with this effort. Ravi asks if the ISO datatypes will constrain this? Gunther says to ISO datatypes it will have an indirect conformance.

Discussion period closed 11:27 am by Austin Kreisler. If discussion is to continue need a separate call, or will entertain an amended motion or vote on current motion. FTSD asked their preference; Woody prefers it be amended to limit its use to be clear what its purpose is. Tony concurs. Woody moves to accept the project with amendment. Austin asks for the amended version to be considered next week. Woody agrees to table the motion and schedule a call for later this week to include ITS cochair Paul Knapp and include Dale Nelson to discuss the amendments. ACTION ITEM Lynn will set up poll for meeting time later this week to discuss the amendments to the scope statement.

Jane Curry on the call to answer questions. Question on Tooling collaboration/ linkage to Patient Care/DCM? MAX hopes to clarify interchange between creation of conceptual layer of DAMs to turn them into DMIMs and RMIMs with enterprise architect without having to completely recreate them. Jane adds particular techniques to extract pertinent model element documentation from tools used for other purposes to make them available through some transform mechanism to our tool specifications for static models. Woody asks how it relates to MIF? MIF is one output that will be explored but may not be the only technique for taking element documentation out of one tool into another tool. Woody notes XMI target under 4.B and MIF format should be targeted. Ravi asks if the export formats will be part of the ballot? Jane responds that it is not part of the project scope. Austin asks if HL7 funding is requested; Jane says no. Woody notes that XMI came up short when the MIF format was being considered as the common HL7 representation. Jane says next step is to create a charter on how this will work, and the primary sponsor CIC is giving the requirements. ACTION ITEM: Woody will provide Lynn with a sentence to the amendment to 4.B. Project Need.

Advancing DSTU unaltered as normative. Gregg asks if the ballot issues were reconciled. It passed ballot and was approved as DSTU so they’re taking it back to ballot as normative.

Vote: unanimously approved.

Discussion topics:

Update on CMET R3 (ANSI affirmation) - Woody reports: we determined in late November that we can probably accomplish the CMET approval without reaffirmation (as yet not fully confirmed) and hence we "suspended" this.

January ballot proposal for CMET R3 specifications was not needed just to get the paperwork together for renewal rather than a ballot. MnM cochairs still need to get that paperwork together. We should drop the project. Lynn asks when it will be ready. Woody will ask during Harmonization tomorrow.

What should be reported on a regular basis? What should those reports look like? Lynn would like to see a reporting mechanism for the TSC-sponsored projects. Austin will ponder this and come back with a suggestion. We might have reports each project once a month or one call per month for all projects reporting in.